--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 09:05
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> > D.2464.m[0] = D.2473_20;
> > D.2464.m[1] = D.2472_19;
> > D.2464.m[2] = D.2471_18;
> > *b_1(D) = D.2464;
> >
> > D.2464 will be dead aft
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 11:20
---
Subject: Bug 44423
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 9 11:20:03 2010
New Revision: 160462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160462
Log:
2010-06-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 14:43
---
OK, I have found the bug and I admit it is rather embarrassing. I'll
submit a patch soon.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 16:49
---
Subject: Bug 44258
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 10 16:49:09 2010
New Revision: 160561
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160561
Log:
2010-06-10 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 21:39 ---
Mine
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #18 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 16:49
---
When I tried the LTO step in any of the two testcases I got:
jamb...@tuc:~/gcc/mine/test/pr44464$ ~/gcc/inst/mine/bin/gcc -r -fwhopr
igmp.mini.o
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s
collect2: ld returned 1 exit
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:39
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> SSE performance is fine again, thanks a lot!
>
> One more question, if that's OK...
> Depending on ARRSZ the testcase uses wildly varying amounts of CPU time; it
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:44 ---
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01146.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43905
--- Comment #17 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:50
---
OK, I did not put much effort into my thinking about it :-)
Yes, the testcase is fine as it is.
I'm not testing the patch on the 4.5 branch and will commit it today
if everything goes fine.
--
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:51
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> do you plan to backport this fix to 4.5 branch?
>
Of course, I'm running the bootstrap and testsuite right now. I will
commit it today if everything goes fine.
--- Comment #18 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 09:48
---
Subject: Bug 44423
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 09:48:39 2010
New Revision: 160775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160775
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:03
---
Subject: Bug 44258
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 10:03:35 2010
New Revision: 160776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160776
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:04
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:05
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 11:09
---
Subject: Bug 44464
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 11:09:12 2010
New Revision: 160777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160777
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor
PR l
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 15:08 ---
Unfortunately I don't see this happening on the x86_64-linux ->
arm-linux-gnueabi cross compiler I built for myself. The generated
assembly has all four elements in the initialization of CSWTCH.2
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 17:55 ---
We seem to be folding the virtual call to the wrong method. I'm
investigating...
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 12:22 ---
Subject: Bug 43905
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 16 12:21:56 2010
New Revision: 160832
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160832
Log:
2010-06-16 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 16:25 ---
Patch posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01653.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44535
--- Comment #21 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 17:01
---
Subject: Bug 44464
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 16 17:01:06 2010
New Revision: 160852
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160852
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor
PR l
--- Comment #22 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 17:02
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 13:14 ---
A request for approval to backport the two patches sent to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01663.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44133
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 14:02 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Subject: Re: switch/case optimization produces an invalid lookup table index
>
> I bet it could be reproduced on any target with -fshort-enums.
>
Unfortunately no, this swi
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 15:00
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Could you please first try to reproduce the bug with the
> > -fno-tree-switch-conversion swithch?
>
> Using GCC 4.5.0 (tarball)
>
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 16:37
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > > With -fno-tree-switch-conversion switch option switch, the bug does not
> > > appear.
> > Really? See below...
>
> Be
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-20 16:50
---
(In reply to comment #14)
>
> Let me know how to proceed if you need more dumps.
Well, at this point I'd generate all tree dumps with -fdump-tree-all
and start looking through them. You can tar-gz
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 08:29
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > ... I cannot reproduce the problem.
> I can send you either the compiler binaries (hosts: cygwin/linux i386/linux
> x64/darwin x64) or th
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 08:35 ---
Honza, does this look familiar to you?
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 15:42 ---
Subject: Bug 44535
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jun 28 15:42:01 2010
New Revision: 161498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161498
Log:
2010-06-28 Martin Jambor
PR c
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 17:00 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44133
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 29 13:08:46 2010
New Revision: 161532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161532
Log:
2010-06-29 Martin Jambor
Backport from
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:10 ---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:16 ---
4.5 patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02896.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43905
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 13:27
---
Subject: Bug 43905
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 30 13:26:17 2010
New Revision: 161604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161604
Log:
2010-06-30 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 15:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=21044)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21044&action=view)
Another testcase.
I believe I ran into this bug when trying WHOPR bootstrap at -O3 (on
x86_64-lin
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 12:28 ---
On revision 161693, the backtrace to the spot where a CANONICAL_TYPE
is assigned to a type which already is a CANONICAL_TYPE of another one
is:
#0 0x009529e4 in build_array_type (elt_type=0x77e947e0
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 13:28
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-16 13:27
---
I'm now working on inlining of indirect calls (PR 9079) and intend to allow for
inlining of calls through member pointers too.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 08:57 ---
I will look at it straight away.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 14:09 ---
OK, I think I have it. It was a stupid mistake on my side. The
following patch seems to fix it:
Subject: Fix PR 36926
2008-07-25 Martin Jambor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR 36926
* ipa-
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 16:45 ---
Patch submitted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg02014.html
Tuples version: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg02017.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36926
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 17:51
---
As of revision 138092 we are handling this much better.
The example in bug description gets inlined at -O2 even with
-fno-early-inlining.
The example in comment #10 does not work as expected yet. The new
401 - 442 of 442 matches
Mail list logo
